4.7 Article

Effect of layer number on recovery rate of WS2 nanosheets for ammonia detection at room temperature

期刊

APPLIED SURFACE SCIENCE
卷 414, 期 -, 页码 244-250

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2017.04.063

关键词

WS2; Layer number; Recovery rate; Room temperature; Ammonia detection

资金

  1. Aeronautical Science Foundation of China [20130379003]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51572075]
  3. Innovation Foundation of Graduate Innovation and Entrepreneurship Base of Huazhong University of Science and Technology [0118650046]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tungsten disulfide (WS2), as a representative layered transition metal dichalcogenides (TMDs), is expected as a promising candidate for high-performance NH3 sensor at room temperature. Unfortunately, the common WS2 based NH3 sensors are difficult to recovery at room temperature, which severely limits its application. Hence, how to improve recovery has become an urgent problem to be solved. Herein, we prepare five types of WS2 nanosheets with different layer numbers from bulk to monolayer, and find that the recovery time of NH3 gas sensor is rapidly linear shorten as the number of layers decreasing. Through the first-principles calculation of the interaction between NH3 and WS2 substance, the different binding energy between ammonia and the surface (-0.179 eV) and interlayer (-0.356 eV) of layered WS2, as well as the different electron transfer way, should be responsible for the difficult recovery rate of various WS2 samples. Therefore, reducing the number of layer of WS2 is a promising approach to speed up recovery. Based on this conclusion, we successfully prepare a fast recoverable ammonia gas sensor based on single layer WS2, which exhibits exciting fast recovery within 271.9 s at room temperature without any condition. Moreover, our work also can act as a reference for other gas detection of TMDs based gas sensor to improve the gas performance at room-temperature. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据